From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:45577)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <lcapitulino@redhat.com>) id 1SWTPs-0007i6-LQ
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 21 May 2012 10:17:01 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <lcapitulino@redhat.com>) id 1SWTPm-0007uG-2o
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 21 May 2012 10:16:56 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:28399)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <lcapitulino@redhat.com>) id 1SWTPl-0007u2-RL
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 21 May 2012 10:16:50 -0400
Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 11:17:03 -0300
From: Luiz Capitulino <lcapitulino@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <20120521111703.5002484f@doriath.home>
In-Reply-To: <4FBA4C98.20109@redhat.com>
References: <4FB6821A.1080902@redhat.com>
	<20120521105901.4fbe7363@doriath.home> <4FBA4C98.20109@redhat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Proposal for extensions of block job commands in
	QEMU 1.2
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>
Cc: aliguori@us.ibm.com, Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@linux.vnet.ibm.com>, qemu-devel <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>, Federico Simoncelli <fsimonce@redhat.com>, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>, Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com>

On Mon, 21 May 2012 16:09:28 +0200
Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com> wrote:

> Am 21.05.2012 15:59, schrieb Luiz Capitulino:
> > On Fri, 18 May 2012 19:08:42 +0200
> > Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> Modified QMP commands
> >> =====================
> > 
> > As we have discussed on the ML, we're not going to extend QMP commands.
> > 
> > I understand your reasoning, and since the beginning I thought this was
> > something useful to do, but we've already settled for not doing this.
> > 
> > I also think that we shouldn't have exceptions, as in practice this means
> > we're extending commands anyway. So either, we do it or we don't.
> 
> What's the reason for disallowing command extensions? I'd find it rather
> silly to maintain ten different functions that all do basically the
> same, just that some of them have more optional parameters than others...

See the subthread started by Anthony.